State v. DavisState v. Davis
OPINION
JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶ 1} Plаintiff-appellant the State of Ohio appeals the April 9, 2003 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, granting defendant-appellee Adrienne Davis’ motion for a new trial.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶ 2} On November 4, 2002, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellee on one count of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of
{¶ 3} “a. a copy of such criminal record or records maintained by the State of Ohio now in his possession or which he can obtain by request madе to the appropriate Ohio criminal record source. If a search of Ohio records reveals no reсord as to any one individual witness, a written report of such fact shall promptly be given to Defense Counsel;
{¶ 4} “b. a coрy of such criminal record as may be obtained by request made to the Identification Division, Federal Bureau of Investigatiоn, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20535. Should inquiry of the F.B.I.‘s Identification Division reveal no criminal record as to a particular witness, written report of such fact shall promptly be given Defense Counsel;
{¶ 5} “c. prior arrests, and whether or not said witnessеs are under indictment or is charged in any criminal proceedings. If no proper arrests or pending indictments or criminal proceedings, a written report of such fact shall be given promptly to Defense Counsel;”
{¶ 6} On the morning of trial, the State provided appellee with a copy of the Criminal Justice Information System printout, which the assistant prosecutor hаd accessed from the Internet. This document only contained the confidential informant‘s local criminal history in Stark County. The matter proceeded to trial. After hearing all the evidence and deliberations, the jury found appellee guilty as charged.
{¶ 7} On January 29, 2003, appellee filed a Motion for New Trial pursuant to
{¶ 8} Via Judgment Entry filed April 9, 2003, the trial court granted appellee‘s motion for a new trial and reactivated the case. The trial court specifically found the undisclosed evidence to be material and “the failure to provide [appellee] with this information absolutely undermines the confidence in the outcome of this particular case.”
{¶ 9} It is from the April 9, 2003 Judgment Entry the State appeals, raising as its sole assignment of error:
{¶ 10} “I. The trial court erred in granting appellee a new trial.”
I
{¶ 11} Herein, the State maintains the trial court erred in granting appellee‘s motion for a new trial.
{¶ 12}
• * *
{¶ 13} “(2) Misconduсt of the jury, prosecuting attorney, or the witnesses for the state;
* * *
{¶ 14} “(6) When new evidence material to the defense is discоvered which the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial.
* * *
{¶ 15} “In order to grant a
{¶ 16} The State argues the undisclosed evidence was not material to the defense. Because the State challenged the trial court‘s finding on the issue of the materiality of the evidence, the State was required to provide this Court with a transcript of the trial.
{¶ 17} In Knapp v. Edwards Lab. (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, the Ohio Supreme Court held: “When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, thе reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the Court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court‘s proceedings, and affirm.” Id. at 199.
{¶ 18} Based upon the authority of the Knapp, we presume the regularity of the trial court‘s decision and find the Statе has failed to affirmatively demonstrate in the record the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellee‘s motion for a new trial.
{¶ 19} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Gwin, P.J., and Edwards, J., concur.
For the reason stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs asses